The latest reports of NVIDIA’s upcoming GeForce Titan GK110 mammoth have arrived revealing that the card is confirmed to feature a massive 6 GB memory buffer. Additionally, review samples of the card have already been shipped to various tech blogs including PCPer and TechReport as revealed by News Editor of Rade3D Caveman-jim (Videocardz)...

The latest reports of NVIDIA’s upcoming GeForce Titan GK110 mammoth have arrived revealing that the card is confirmed to feature a massive 6 GB memory buffer. Additionally, review samples of the card have already been shipped to various tech blogs including PCPer and TechReport as revealed by News Editor of Rade3D Caveman-jim (Videocardz)...

The link in that forum? Or general Titan whisperings? I looked for the previous thread and it wasn't on page one so thought what the hey! folks will wanna see this.
We now know for sure vram size and tdp, where has this been posted already?

Stupid amount, at least for gaming, it'll push the price up too. I'm really not interested now, though the no doubt steep price was always gonna be difficult to manage.
But perhaps it'll push the other GPUs down a bit in price then everyone's a winner

The link in that forum? Or general Titan whisperings? I looked for the previous thread and it wasn't on page one so thought what the hey! folks will wanna see this.
We now know for sure vram size and tdp, where has this been posted already?

The extreme 3dmark11 result was the first real bit of info (though someone tried but failed in labelling it a 690 score), then the info arrived about it being in reviewers hands, now this, the actual vram size and tdp.

I have to question whether any graphics card needs 6 GB of VRAM for the average user who isn't running multiple screens. Yes, I know 8xMSAA in some DirectX 11 games can require more than the 2 GB of VRAM available on a standard GTX 660/670/680 but I'd have thought the logical amount would be 4 GB. That would keep costs down and be more than enough for most people running 1920x10xx and 2560x1xxx displays. My guess is that NVIDIA have done this so this card outclasses everything that has gone before it.

I'm strangely unexcited about the arrival of a new graphics card. True, I have GTX 680 SLI which offers faster performance than a single card anyway so any new single GPU card is not going to be as impressive for performance as it is for owners of non-SLI systems. Secondly, until the new consoles arrive in late 2013 (or early 2014), I'm pretty sure that most games coming out in 2013 will not require a monster card with 6 GB of VRAM either. Plus there's no new version of DirectX to wet our appetites.

Or would you rather they re-engineered it with 3GB of RAM so it has less than your 680?

3gb would be better yes, and i'm under no illusion that the 680 is in the big picture anything more than mid-range hardware.
With more vram it means more can go wrong.
Folks should be worried about the limited quantity tbh, and if HH gets one.

3gb would be better yes, and i'm under no illusion that the 680 is in the big picture anything more than mid-range hardware.
With more vram it means more can go wrong.Folks should be worried about the limited quantity tbh, and if HH gets one.

The GTX690 in my country and heck even de GTX680 is nowhere near in full stock at any shop.

So i really hope the Titan will be here and not a ''Paper'' Launch.. meaning i have to wait another month before i can order it.

My 2 gtx580's cost me NZ$1600 and i cant even max every game out. Now when looking at whats available at the moment, gamewise, that **** aint right. Should not need to spend that kind of money on gfx cards just to play games that look like metro, the witcher 2 and crysis/2 at 60fps and up.

So unless theres going to be some revolution in gfx sometime soon, well then im not wasting anymore money on gfx cards, as the price vs performance is not there.

The average PC gamer, which includes myself, plays games on a single 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 display and simply will not need a card with more than 4 GB for the foreseeable future. By the time they do then the hardware would be obsolete anyway and too slow to run modern games.

It is enthusiasts that want 6 GB for multi-monitor gaming but considering that they probably make up less than 1% of the user base then I have to question whether making the cards stupidly expensive is a sensible thing to do in this economy. I want a powerful high-end card at some point but I don't want one that costs me more for VRAM don't need. The GTX 680 may have had less VRAM than the AMD cards but in retrospect 2 GB was plenty for most people except for mere handful of games. Most games I play barely use more than half my cards VRAM!!!